Urban
populations often show a high diversity in wealth or income. This is reflected
in contrasts between affluent and poor neighbourhoods. Such contrasts feed
policy and academic debates on housing market regulation and welfare arrangements.
Generally, it is supposed that more liberal policy regimes give greater freedom
for people to choose their residential location, which can lead to higher
levels of segregation and homogenous neighbourhoods. This notion also often
surfaces when differences in urban inequality between Northern American and
Western European cities are discussed. The assumption is that European cities
have a welfare state legacy of housing market regulation which assuages social
segregation. Furthermore, social mixing policies try to bring a mix of
different social strata into neighbourhoods in order to prevent unwanted
patterns of segregation and accumulation of problems in disadvantaged
neighbourhoods. So, rather than just choice, mobility is also structured by institutional
arrangements like social housing waiting lists. Also, because income inequality
is less pronounced and residential environments tend to be more mixed, people
may not find it necessary to take the social composition of their neighbourhood
into account.

Yet,
despite regulation and interventions and lower inequality, Western European
cities do exhibit patterns of social segregation with conspicuous
concentrations of wealth and poverty. While acknowledging that segregation
patterns within a city are produced and reproduced by a range of factors, we
were interested in the role of individual residential moves in the continuous
existing reality of contrasting affluent and poorer neighbourhoods in the
Netherlands. Do we see that ‘birds of a feather flock together’? In other
words, do people show a preference for living among ‘equals’ in their mobility
behaviour? Even weak signals of this selectivity behaviour may help to
understand why segregation at neighbourhood level survives, even if policy measures
try to counteract it.

This
article focuses on ‘socio-economic distance’: the discrepancy between
households’socio-economic positions and the socio-economic profile of their
neighbourhood. We analysed large-scale longitudinal register data for all residents
of the four largest cities of the Netherlands that were available at Statistics
Netherlands.

We found
that, despite government regulation, the socio-economic distance to the
neighbourhood is an important driver of socio-economic segregation. Both
households that are more affluent than the neighbourhood average and households
that are poorer more often move out of that neighbourhood. Moreover, movers
tend to select destination neighbourhoods in which the residents resemble their
own socio-economic position more closely. So, notwithstanding household change
such as moving in together or separation, households who move tend to adapt to,
and thereby sustain, the socio-economic status of neighbourhoods.

Our findings offer new input for debates and policies
relating to segregation and social mixing, and
pose challenges for policy makers and politicians who
believe that segregated neighbourhoods will eventually have negative effects on
the whole society. Our findings suggest that economic segregation in neighbourhoods
cannot be counteracted by housing market rules and regulations alone.
Individual choices of residents lead to more homogeneous neighbourhoods, either
low income neighbourhoods or high income neighbourhoods. However, residential mobility is not always a matter of
individual choice alone. There are many limitations related to access and
affordability when there is scarcity on the housing market. Also, regulations
may produce several constraints. The economically stronger households will more
easily find a place that fits their position. The economically weaker may be
more or less forced to move, for instance when the character of a neighbourhood
changes significantly, as some of the gentrification literature claims.

Our research may
trigger new investigations into the ‘functioning’of neighbourhoods. Not every
neighbourhood will function in the same way. Some neighbourhoods with
substantial social mix may stay attractive to a wide range of households. It
might be worth investigating under what circumstances socially mixed
neighbourhoods are sustainable, what the main characteristics of such
neighbourhoods are in terms of location, tenure, housing type, demographic,
cultural and other compositions, and why people decide to stay in such
environments.

Re. it "might be worth investigating under what circumstances socially mixed neighbourhoods are sustainable, what the main characteristics of such neighbourhoods are in terms of location, tenure, housing type, demographic, cultural and other compositions, and why people decide to stay in such environments."

Yes. Why WOULD anyone in his or her right mind "decide to stay in such...mixed neighbourhoods," especially when the "mix" referred to is "demographic" in nature? Well put, sir. I concur.

About

Urban Studies is the leading interdisciplinary journal for critical urban research and issues. Since it was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum for research into the fields of urban and regional studies, the journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional issues